Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

Posts

While it was not Zimmerman's "job" to do any of the things listed, only the citizens arrest would be doing something illegal. Anyone can walk up a stranger in their neighborhood and ask, "what are you doing here?" The person you are asking can basically give you the finger and tell you to go to hell. Just because you don't have the authority to get an answer doesn't mean that you can't ask.

Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.

None of these are any of Zimmerman's responsibility, nor can you give me a reasonable argument that Zimmerman held any authority over Martin to even make that his responsibility. Further, there is no reasonable expectation on Martin's behalf to consent or respond to Zimmerman's demands, suspicions, or questions.

Martin was a legal resident of the exact same neighborhood Zimmerman was living in and had every right to be walking through it.

Also, youre taking this all from the perspective of the person conducting the action. Of course Zimmerman doesnt think he is doing anything threatening because he knows why he is doing what he is doing.

Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.

That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying

And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?

I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"

Well, this particular situation is a domestic dispute where victims often change their statements to protect their attacker (and the attacker will try to "help" the victim because they need a victim) so I dont think its entirely inconceivable for a judge to look at the evidence available and determine that the account the victim told in order to assert SYG was unfounded or flawed and that a trial was proper to determine the fact. Just because SYG doesnt apply doesnt mean that she couldnt assert self defense.

Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.

That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying

And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?

I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"

Well, this particular situation is a domestic dispute where victims often change their statements to protect their attacker (and the attacker will try to "help" the victim because they need a victim) so I dont think its entirely inconceivable for a judge to look at the evidence available and determine that the account the victim told in order to assert SYG was unfounded or flawed and that a trial was proper to determine the fact. Just because SYG doesnt apply doesnt mean that she couldnt assert self defense.

But, where is the evidence that Gray changed his story?

The judge's ruling only says that Alexander violated a court order not to have contact with Gray, not that the 2 engaged in a conspiracy for Gray to commit perjury at the deposition.

the Defendant testified that she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open... The garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

1) The door wasn't working properly.
2) Even if the door was working properly, it wouldn't have raised anyways because it was locked.

Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.

That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying

And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?

I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"

Well, this particular situation is a domestic dispute where victims often change their statements to protect their attacker (and the attacker will try to "help" the victim because they need a victim) so I dont think its entirely inconceivable for a judge to look at the evidence available and determine that the account the victim told in order to assert SYG was unfounded or flawed and that a trial was proper to determine the fact. Just because SYG doesnt apply doesnt mean that she couldnt assert self defense.

But, where is the evidence that Gray changed his story?

The judge's ruling only says that Alexander violated a court order not to have contact with Gray, not that the 2 engaged in a conspiracy for Gray to commit perjury at the deposition.

the Defendant testified that she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open... The garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

1) The door wasn't working properly.
2) Even if the door was working properly, it wouldn't have raised anyways because it was locked.

She went to his house right? And she parked her car was in his garage? But the garage door wouldnt go up? And when the police arrived on the scene they couldnt recreate the difficulty Alexandra claims to have had?

- Finally, the previous accounts of a hypothetical Zimmerman self-defense talked about Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun. This just says Martin noticed Zimmerman's gun. There's a HUGE difference between noticing a gun and reaching for it. Tell a cop "Nice gun," and he'll say "Thanks". Reach for the cop's gun, and you're in for a very unpleasant time.

Noticing a gun of somebody you pass on the street and noticing the gun of somebody you are locked in a physical struggle with are two different things too, though. You don't really want to wait until "noticing" goes to "reaching for" in a fight, because at that point your likelihood of death just went up about a thousandfold.

True. Although I would contend that Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun constitutes a much more obviously "reasonable" threat than Martin simply noticing the gun.

Martin noticing the gun could have caused Martin to reach for it, but it just as easily could have scared Martin off. IIRC the NRA likes to talk about how every year hundreds/thousands of criminals are scared off by potential victims brandishing a firearm but not having to fire it, simply because the criminals are scared off when they notice their would-be victim has a gun.

Kinda reaches back to the reason that you need only be threatened with imminent GBH and not imminent death to use deadly force...because if you wait for imminent death, you are probably going to die.

I agree, which raises the question of "Why would Zimmerman say that Martin only noticed the gun, rather than reached for it?"

Because reaching for the gun is a much more obvious threat of imminent death/GBH than simply noticing the gun. IMO Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun was his strongest possible argument for self-defense, and now he's at least partially neutered it.

Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.

That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying

And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?

I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"

Well, this particular situation is a domestic dispute where victims often change their statements to protect their attacker (and the attacker will try to "help" the victim because they need a victim) so I dont think its entirely inconceivable for a judge to look at the evidence available and determine that the account the victim told in order to assert SYG was unfounded or flawed and that a trial was proper to determine the fact. Just because SYG doesnt apply doesnt mean that she couldnt assert self defense.

But, where is the evidence that Gray changed his story?

The judge's ruling only says that Alexander violated a court order not to have contact with Gray, not that the 2 engaged in a conspiracy for Gray to commit perjury at the deposition.

the Defendant testified that she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open... The garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

1) The door wasn't working properly.
2) Even if the door was working properly, it wouldn't have raised anyways because it was locked.

She went to his house right? And she parked her car was in his garage? But the garage door wouldnt go up? And when the police arrived on the scene they couldnt recreate the difficulty Alexandra claims to have had?

Alexander went to the house on July 31, 2010. She parked her car in the garage and closed the garage door. At the time, Gray and the children were not in the house.

Gray and the children arrived at the house the next day, on August 1, 2010. Later that same day is when the incident occurred.

So if Gray locked the garage, he would have locked it on August 1, after Alexander had already parked her car and closed the garage door, because he wasn't at the house on July 31. Again, quoting the same section of his deposition:

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

To me it looks like:
- July 31. Alexander arrives at house. She parks her car in garage and closes the garage door.
- August 1, morning. Gray arrives at house. He parks his car in the driveway. He notices a problem with the garage door, namely that the door will not open. He then locks the garage door.
- August 1, time of incident. Alexander attempts to escape by opening the garage door. The door will not open, either from the earlier malfunction and/or because the door is still locked.

And when the police arrived on the scene they couldnt recreate the difficulty Alexandra claims to have had?

When the police were able to open the garage door, was the door in a closed and locked position when they tried?

It's possible whatever electronic/mechanical problem Gray had with the garage door on the morning of August 1 had fixed itself by the time of the incident. In my personal experience, garage door openers are not the most reliable tech around. However, even if the mechanical problem with the door had been resolved, there's still the issue of the door being locked. A properly functioning door still shouldn't open if it was locked.

So unless the police were able to open the garage door while it was locked, they were not re-creating the same scenario Alexander faced.

That is... the dumbest thing I've read today. The _best_ case scenario in a confrontation involving a gun is that when it is drawn the other party buggers off.

Here's a really simple rule that you should know about CCW (carrying a concealed weapon):

You do not, under any circumstances, draw your gun unless you intend to shoot to kill. Period. This should be covered in every course you would be required to take before being issued your concealed carry license.

Injure or kill someone, and it is 25-Life. Only the prosecutor can waive the mandatory minimum sentences.

This is kind of a late reply, but I do indeed understand how firearms work, having extensive experience with them. I wasn't saying that a person carrying should draw unless they are in a situation where they feel the threat is serious enough to be prepared to shoot. I absolutely understand that one should only draw when prepared to fire. However, being prepared to fire doesn't mean that you just haul it out and start firing if, say, the act of drawing causes the party causing you concern FUCKS OFF upon seeing you are armed. Which is what I mean by best case scenario.

What I'm pointing out that if the scenario I posit comes to pass, IE a justified draw causes the person of concern to beat feet hastily, that the person carrying would then be liable to be charged for even producing the firearm in the first place.

Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.

That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying

And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?

I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"

Well, this particular situation is a domestic dispute where victims often change their statements to protect their attacker (and the attacker will try to "help" the victim because they need a victim) so I dont think its entirely inconceivable for a judge to look at the evidence available and determine that the account the victim told in order to assert SYG was unfounded or flawed and that a trial was proper to determine the fact. Just because SYG doesnt apply doesnt mean that she couldnt assert self defense.

But, where is the evidence that Gray changed his story?

The judge's ruling only says that Alexander violated a court order not to have contact with Gray, not that the 2 engaged in a conspiracy for Gray to commit perjury at the deposition.

the Defendant testified that she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open... The garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

1) The door wasn't working properly.
2) Even if the door was working properly, it wouldn't have raised anyways because it was locked.

She went to his house right? And she parked her car was in his garage? But the garage door wouldnt go up? And when the police arrived on the scene they couldnt recreate the difficulty Alexandra claims to have had?

Alexander went to the house on July 31, 2010. She parked her car in the garage and closed the garage door. At the time, Gray and the children were not in the house.

Gray and the children arrived at the house the next day, on August 1, 2010. Later that same day is when the incident occurred.

So if Gray locked the garage, he would have locked it on August 1, after Alexander had already parked her car and closed the garage door, because he wasn't at the house on July 31. Again, quoting the same section of his deposition:

I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

To me it looks like:
- July 31. Alexander arrives at house. She parks her car in garage and closes the garage door.
- August 1, morning. Gray arrives at house. He parks his car in the driveway. He notices a problem with the garage door, namely that the door will not open. He then locks the garage door.
- August 1, time of incident. Alexander attempts to escape by opening the garage door. The door will not open, either from the earlier malfunction and/or because the door is still locked.

And when the police arrived on the scene they couldnt recreate the difficulty Alexandra claims to have had?

When the police were able to open the garage door, was the door in a closed and locked position when they tried?

It's possible whatever electronic/mechanical problem Gray had with the garage door on the morning of August 1 had fixed itself by the time of the incident. In my personal experience, garage door openers are not the most reliable tech around. However, even if the mechanical problem with the door had been resolved, there's still the issue of the door being locked. A properly functioning door still shouldn't open if it was locked.

So unless the police were able to open the garage door while it was locked, they were not re-creating the same scenario Alexander faced.

Reading through both of his depositions, his tone drastically changes in the second one. It starts with him telling the lawyer that he lied to the cops about her hitting him and that despite telling the cops that she tried to kill him he didnt really believe it, and that he lied to child services when he gave them his account of what had transpired.

But what doesnt change is his story about he wasnt hitting her with his hands, he was just trying to keep her there and that he kept telling her that he wanted to talk about what was going on.

Regarding whether the door was locked its possible that what he meant by locked was stuck/not working, since his words were:

...but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage door and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.

unless hes saying he locked a garage door that wouldnt go up.

Regardless, Im pretty sure a police investigation would have revealed that the garage door was/was not locked since I assume the situation kind of went down like this:

Clearly the officers tried to open the door since they were able to open the door.

Maybe he decided to unlock the garage door after she kicked him out of the house and before the police arrived?

Also, from this depo it appears he wasnt shot? So she got her gun and instead of pointing it at the guy who was threatening her, she shot into the air? If she was facing imminent harm, wouldnt she have tried to shoot him?

He also says he never tried to strangle her or anything. Im sure she was scared, but I dont see imminent threat of harm.

0·

AtomikaLive long and prosper!Unless you're evil, in which case do neitherRegistered Userregular

The photographer told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The source saw Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and claims the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible; the gunpowder marks could show that Martin was shot at very close range.

The photographer says that after the shooting Zimmerman asked to call his wife. When the photographer asked what to say, Zimmerman allegedly blurted out "man, just tell her I shot someone."

I'm not saying it happened, but I'm not going to rule out any possibility. I'm curious if this conflicts with the paramedic reports.

the articles states he was treated by them on sight, no stitches or bandages- and then the video of the arrival at the police station is filmed shortly after where he looks ok. he was cleaned up by professionals by then. One would assume the same paramedic wrote those reports.

The prosicution will argue it was superficial and he was not in life threatening danger with a younger stronger guy on top of him, the defense will argue "how about we bounce your head off some pavement and we see how 'superficial' that feels?"

I don't think there was ever really a doubt with most people that they fought. I think the bigger question was 'who started it?' Unfortunately, our state's new laws state that you can start a fight, get your butt kicked, and then decide you've had enough and shoot the other guy because he's winning.

"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."

ABC News has released a photograph of George Zimmerman from the scene of the incident that corroborates his story that he was assaulted.

Spoiler:

Not to point out the obvious or anything but that proves nothing. If I'd just killed someone for no reason at all, the first thing I would to is knock myself around a bit and cry self defence.

I've read a lot of reports of the story that indicate immediately after the shooting other people came out to see what was going on. Like this one. The idea that no one noticed him hitting his head against the ground moments after a gun shot that attracted a lot of attention seems unlikely.

ABC News has released a photograph of George Zimmerman from the scene of the incident that corroborates his story that he was assaulted.

Spoiler:

Not to point out the obvious or anything but that proves nothing. If I'd just killed someone for no reason at all, the first thing I would to is knock myself around a bit and cry self defence.

Dont be that guy. This isnt the movies.

What? People don't fabricate or plant evidence in real life?

Yes they do but this wasn’t something where it was pre meditated(to a crazy degree at least... evidence points that way anyway) and there was NO time alone at the scene. it happened very quickly and then people were there and with him quickly.

So in the spur off the moment, adrenalin pumping, blood on his hands and people coming-> he twirls his racist mustache and begins to laugh as he then bashes his own head on the pavement. Or - there was a genuine scuffle.

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

I still agree with this. Most likely scenario, to me, is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin turned to leave, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin by grabbing his wrist or something, Martin turned around, punched Zimmerman, who dragged Martin down with him when he fell backwards (Busting open his head in the process). From there, a short scuffle, and Martin gets shot.

ABC News has released a photograph of George Zimmerman from the scene of the incident that corroborates his story that he was assaulted.

Spoiler:

Also kind of convenient that he had a camera and was around just in time!

I haven't posted in this thread because I have nothing to add

but come on, man.

A cell phone.

"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz EllorMy new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

I still agree with this. Most likely scenario, to me, is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin turned to leave, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin by grabbing his wrist or something, Martin turned around, punched Zimmerman, who dragged Martin down with him when he fell backwards (Busting open his head in the process). From there, a short scuffle, and Martin gets shot.

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

I still agree with this. Most likely scenario, to me, is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin turned to leave, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin by grabbing his wrist or something, Martin turned around, punched Zimmerman, who dragged Martin down with him when he fell backwards (Busting open his head in the process). From there, a short scuffle, and Martin gets shot.

The worst part about this scenario is that nobody will be able to refute or corroborate that key point. Throughout all of this I've just been feeling like Jake Gittes in Chinatown. "Forget it, Jake, it's Florida."

"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

That is what Zimmerman's father said, but it isn't even necessarily what Zimmerman told police.

Going off of what we "know"
During the 911 call Zimmerman loses sight of Martin.

From Martin's girlfriend's account:
Martin was initially fearful of Zimmerman. He says he doesn't want to run, but walks faster to get away.
Martin, "Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman, "What are you doing here?"

Not too unbelievable that after Martin ditches him, and he has a few seconds to think about it, his fear turns to anger. Why am I running? Who is this guy? How dare he make me fear for my life, while I'm just walking home? Maybe he is angry at himself for being afraid in the first place. He then goes up to, and confronts Zimmerman.

Or maybe he thought he lost him. Proceeded to walk home, and ran into Zimmerman again.

I use Martin's girlfriend's account because if anything it is more likely to be favorable of Martin if not the truth. It also does not seem overtly favorable of him.

I can see Martin confronting but there's that giant leap where he just falcon punches Zimmerman for apparently no reason.

Eh, like I said, I guess anything is possible.

The majority of my inital anger towards this whole case was the fact that Sanford PD just walked away in the beginning. No photos or interviews until a rucus was caused by the parents. One can only hope that they did enough due dilligence as to not screw up the whole investigation. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened here.

"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."

I guess the hardest pill for me to swallow is the idea that Martin ran away (seemingly in fear) and then suddenly decided to double-back with the sole intent of fighting a much larger man. The whole "you're gonna die" line is just too much to believe. You'd be hard-pressed to find seasoned criminals who would run back towards the danger and utter a line as corny as that. I guess anything is possible, but if you look at the patterns of behavior of both men, it's pretty outlandish.

I still agree with this. Most likely scenario, to me, is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin turned to leave, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin by grabbing his wrist or something, Martin turned around, punched Zimmerman, who dragged Martin down with him when he fell backwards (Busting open his head in the process). From there, a short scuffle, and Martin gets shot.

Your scenario is leaving out the person calling for help for at least 30 seconds before the gun shot (what you can hear on the 911 call). I think it safe to assume the person calling for help is on the losing end of the fight. 30 seconds is a long time to be getting beat up.

I can see Martin confronting but there's that giant leap where he just falcon punches Zimmerman for apparently no reason.

Eh, like I said, I guess anything is possible.

The majority of my inital anger towards this whole case was the fact that Sanford PD just walked away in the beginning. No photos or interviews until a rucus was caused by the parents. One can only hope that they did enough due dilligence as to not screw up the whole investigation. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened here.

Police don't typically release evidence of an investigation to the public. This is important because you don't want potential suspects to know what evidence exists that could be used against them. You also don't want to contaminate the jury pool. The media seemed to mostly be misreporting that the police did not do an investigation.

I do think the police did a terrible job in the way they handled releasing information to the media. I also think that they could have cleared up a lot of the controversy, and misinformation if they had done a better job letting the public know what was going on.